DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) in claim 1, “each calibration data” on line 6 should probably be --each of the plurality of calibration data-- (further occurrence of “each calibration data” in the claims should probably be --each of the plurality of calibration data--);
(b) in claim 1, “the number of times” on line 7 should probably be --number of times--; and
(c) in claim 1, “the executed imaging” on the last two lines should probably be --said imaging is executed--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the imaging purpose of the executed imaging” in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
(a) “an update frequency” (recited in dependent claim 2) to other recited elements (e.g., what relationship to “an update frequency” recited in independent claim 1);
(b) “each calibration data item” (recited in dependent claim 3) to other recited elements (e.g., what relationship to “a plurality of calibration data” recited in independent claim 1);
(c) “a weighting coefficient” (recited in dependent claim 3) to other recited elements (e.g., what relationship to “a weighting coefficient” recited in independent claim 1);
(d) “a weighting coefficient” (recited in dependent claim 6) to other recited elements (e.g., what relationship to “a weighting coefficient” recited in dependent claim 5);
(e) “calibration data” (recited in dependent claim 7) to other recited elements (e.g., what relationship to “a plurality of calibration data” recited in independent claim 1);
(f) “a plurality of calibration data” (recited in dependent claim 10) to other recited elements (e.g., what relationship to “a plurality of calibration data” recited in independent claim 1);
(g) “an update frequency” (recited in dependent claim 10) to other recited elements (e.g., what relationship to “an update frequency” recited in independent claim 1); and
(h) “calibration data” (recited in dependent claim 12) to other recited elements (e.g., what relationship to “a plurality of calibration data” recited in independent claim 1).
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also incomplete for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0170627
US 2016/0199018 teaches CT.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights